From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 17 13:10:41 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BPoRU-0003dE-I6
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:32 -0700
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:32 -0700
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu"
Message-ID: <20040517201032.GS6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040517183810.GP6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040517195705.55879.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040517195705.55879.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 7897
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > I completely forgot to check the new definitions.
> > 
> > Fixed.
> 
> It's disheartening that you are "fixing" the parser instead of the
> definition. 

I don't have the power to single-handedly fix the definitions.  If you
want to propose that the BPFK revisit this issue, please feel absolutely
free.

> Everybody seemed to agree that it made more sense to not let bu be a
> zoi delimiter.

I actually don't much care one way or the other at this point.

What would "zoi bu" mean if it was allowed?

> > As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was
> > the commissioner's intention).
> 
> The commissioner was simply reproducing the official grammar, which
> indeed had zoi bu ... bu as valid. The alternatives had not been
> considered until now.

True.

> > Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu)
> > might actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE
> > ZEI BU.
> 
> Does that mean that in {da bu zei bu}, zei wins?

That does follow, yes, as the other possible parse results in an error.

> > > I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu
> > > si da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?
> > 
> > You never let up, do you?  :-)
> > 
> > No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase
> > both BU and Y.
> 
> So {zo y bu si da} is ungrammatical?

Sorry, I'm working on this still, I'll get back to you.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***  I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/  ***  loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi